MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333601479 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0b013e31821b35c1

Encouraging Patients and Families to Influence Change on a Palliative Care Unit

2011· article· en· W2333601479 on OpenAlexaff
Vasiliki Bitzas, Paula P. Calestagne, Lynne McVey, Bernard Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPalliative careUnit (ring theory)Patient satisfactionNursingMedicineMEDLINEPsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes how a series of patient satisfaction surveys on a palliative care unit were used to help influence the care provided to patients and their families. Innovative interventions aimed at addressing areas of lower satisfaction identified in the initial survey are described. The results from a follow-up survey provided the opportunity to evaluate whether our interventions were effective in improving patient satisfaction and highlight new areas of concern needing to be addressed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.433
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.116 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207